DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendments to claims 1, 6, 7, and 12, filed 25 November 2025 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant's amended specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 12 recite the limitation "the insulation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 and 9 recite the limitation “the enhanced freezer door of claim 7”, however, claim 7 defines a method, not an apparatus. If claims 8-12 are meant to depend from claim 7, the preamble then should instead state “the method for an enhanced freezer door according to claim 7.” The examiner will interpret the claims as depending from the method of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raz (U.S. 2017/0254125) in view of Brown (U.S. 4,084,347).
Regarding claim 1, Raz teaches a frame (50); at least a first notch in a first door panel (see annotated fig 2B); where the first notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B) is positioned to receive a jamb (as seen in fig 2B, the first notch receives the jamb of door frame 52).
Raz is silent as to a foam-filled area in the frame adjacent to the first notch.
Brown teaches a door where a foam filled area (38) exists within the frame (see fig 3).
Raz and Brown are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of doors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raz to incorporate the teachings of Brown and provide a foam filled area within the panel of the door. Doing so would provide the door with structural strength and thermal insulation, as taught by Brown in column 3, lines 52-56.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the enhanced freezer door of claim 1. Raz and Brown further teach wherein the frame (50 Raz) includes an internal support (40 Brown) that extends behind the first notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an internal support of Brown to prevent bowing of the door, as taught in column 3 lines 64-65 of Brown.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the enhanced freezer door of claim 1. Raz further teaches wherein a second notch in a second freezer door panel is formed opposite the first notch (see annotated fig 2B).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the enhanced freezer door of claim 3. Raz and Brown further teach wherein the frame (50 Raz) includes an internal support (40 Brown) that extends between the first notch and the second notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B and as per the combination above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an internal support of Brown to prevent bowing of the door, as taught in column 3 lines 64-65 of Brown.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the enhanced freezer door of claim 4. Raz is silent as to the mounting side of the door and therefore is silent as to the door turning on a bollard. Brown teaches the door turns on a bollard (46/52). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a bollard to mount the door doing so would utilize a known and commonly utilized structure for mounting the door.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the enhanced freezer door of claim 4. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Raz and Brown further teach wherein the first freezer door panel and second freezer door panel (both defined in annotated fig 2B) encase the insulation (38 Brown).
Regarding claim 7, Raz teaches a method comprising: forming a frame (50); creating at least a first notch in a first freezer door panel (as defined in annotated fig 2B); where the first notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B) is positioned to receive a jamb (as seen in fig 2B, the first notch receives the jamb of door frame 52).
Raz is silent as to a foam-filled area in the frame adjacent to the first notch.
Brown teaches a door where a foam filled area (38) exists within the frame (see fig 3).
Raz and Brown are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of doors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raz to incorporate the teachings of Brown and provide a foam filled area within the panel of the door. Doing so would provide the door with structural strength and thermal insulation, as taught by Brown in column 3, lines 52-56.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the method of claim 7 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for interpretation). Raz and Brown further teach wherein the frame (50 Raz) includes placing an internal support (40 Brown) that extends behind the first notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an internal support of Brown to prevent bowing of the door, as taught in column 3 lines 64-65 of Brown.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the method of claim 7 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for interpretation). Raz further teaches forming a second notch in a second freezer door panel opposite the first notch (see annotated fig 2B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the method of claim 9 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for interpretation). Raz and Brown further teach wherein the frame (50 Raz) includes placing an internal support (40 Brown) that extends between the first notch and the second notch (as defined in annotated fig 2B and as per the combination above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an internal support of Brown to prevent bowing of the door, as taught in column 3 lines 64-65 of Brown.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the method of claim 10 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for interpretation). Raz is silent as to the mounting side of the door and therefore is silent as to the door turning on a bollard. Brown teaches the door turns on a bollard (46/52). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a bollard to mount the door doing so would utilize a known and commonly utilized structure for mounting the door.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Raz and Brown teaches the method of claim 10 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for interpretation). As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Raz and Brown further teach wherein the first freezer door panel and second freezer door panel (both defined in annotated fig 2B) encase the insulation (38 Brown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 7 to include the limitation that the first notch is positioned to receive a jamb. This amendment prompted a further prior art search which discovered the prior art of Raz. Raz teaches a door with a notch in the panel which receives a jamb. Raz, in combination with the noted insulation, internal support, and mounting features of Brown, teaches the claims as amended.
Applicant’s replacement drawings have overcome the objection from the non-final office action.
Applicant submitted a replacement specification to address objections from the non-final office action, however an objection remains, which is noted above.
Further, applicant’s claim amendments to claims 6 and 12 introduced a lack of antecedent basis for “the insulation” as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631